Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'opens nothing by itself', removing any fear of an accidental side effect. It adds genuinely non-obvious context: Weezevent's REST API only reads tickets and attendees and is partner-gated, which explains why browser automation is required. It does not describe the shape or length of the returned steps, but with annotations covering safety the bar is met.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the outcome and the 'returns steps, opens nothing' clarification, then the next-step tooling, then the API justification. The opening 'from ChatGPT, Claude or any AI agent' is mild marketing filler and the API paragraph is long for a supporting note, but both still carry informational value for deciding whether to call this tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter guide tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns (step-by-step screens, buttons, fields), what it does not do, and which tools complete the task. The only gap is that it does not specify what to pass or do if the returned steps reference an order that the agent cannot identify from this call alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description matches the empty schema — nothing about order IDs, recipients, or filters is claimed, so there is no mismatch between description and schema. An agent will correctly infer no arguments are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description corrects the ambiguity in the name/title by stating the tool 'Returns how to do it in Weezevent step by step (screens, buttons, fields)' and 'opens nothing by itself' — so an agent knows this is a guidance tool, not an action. It also names the follow-up family (cotlet_browser_*) for actually performing the resend. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling cotlet_app_guide or explaining why a dedicated resend guide exists alongside it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear two-step workflow is spelled out: call this tool to get the procedure, then execute it with the cotlet_browser_* tools in the user's Weezevent Cloud Browser. The mention of 'the user's own Weezevent account' sets the account context. No explicit when-not-to-use case or comparison against weezevent_list_orders and other order siblings is given, so it is not a full routing guide.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.